Talk:Judd Winick/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Judd Winick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

No citation

Judd Winick has been criticised by comic book professionals (notably Frank Miller)...

As usual, Wikipedia includes an article alleging specific behavior by an individual with absolutely no citation whatsoever. Small wonder no one takes this project seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.67.134 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 16 June 2005

SO, we obviously have someone at work here( who keeps RE POSTING this old bio) who hates Judd Winick for his inclusion of gay characters and/or HIV + stories.

AND he/she can't even get their BS correct. Frank Miller hasn't been critical of Winick. I believe the poster is referring to MIKE Miller comic book artist, born again christian, and has been known to shoot his homophobic mouth off on the internet. Including attacking Winick( who he had worked with) for doing stories involving gays.

Whoever is reposting should just stop. you bring the website down.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.15.153 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's going on here?

Okay, I reverted the edits that were just made. If you view the changes, you'll see that what was "suggested" (see [1]) is clearly sub-par to what is currently there. The suggested newer article just had some quotes and was completely non-wikified. I don't understand what the motivation was for the suggested new article in the form it was in? --Wolf530 04:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

YEAH What IS going on here?

Okay, I reverted the edits that were just made.

Why? you LIKE the one that screams of Homophobia?

If you view the changes, you'll see that what was "suggested" is clearly sub-par to what is currently there.

No, actually the one I just re-posted just gives the facts of the man's work. Not, among other items, insinuating that he made Robin (of BATMAN AND...) GAY, by having him disguise himself as a woman. I READ the Batman story arc referred to, and it's OBVIOUS what the original poster is trying to do...

The suggested newer article just had some quotes and was completely non-wikified.

Whatever THAT means. If you think the quotes are false, the take THEM out. But WHY would they be false?

I don't understand what the motivation was for the suggested new article in the form it was in?

Because the one that was up is biased and inaccurate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtaylor (talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dtaylor, I think it is important to realise that this article was recently subject to a Vote for deletion because the version to which you keep reverting is unencyclopedic. To quote the nominator: "This page is not a biographical/career history article about Judd Winick. Instead, it is a PR piece that looks like it was largely copied from the back cover of one of his books, complete with quotes from reviewers and a list of awards."

I have attempted to merge the two versions, yours and the old one into a combined article. I have kept the mention of Robin dressing as a woman because I think it is notable and important and don't see how it implies that he is gay. If you don't like the wording of that sentence, please improve it.

I removed the reviewers' quotes because they seem out of place in an encyclopedia. If you have a link to those quotes, the links could be placed in a External links section, however.

Thanks for taking the time to improve Wikipedia.

DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Getting better, but still not there...

u©|P?s is better, but I made a few changes.

To discuss the ENTIRE issue in general, there's a poster who doesn't seem to like Gay people OR the inclusion of Gays in comics. he/she keeps putting this old mean post back up.

While Mr. Winick has INDEED courted controversy, this posters MOTIVES become obvious when they cite items that never been deemed controversial, or even noteworthy.

Points being, Sunfire from the EXILES being a lesbian, and Robin disguising himslef as a female doctor to gain entry in a hospital. I'd ask for the poster to find a SINGLE article ANYWHERE discussing these 2 story points. You won't find any, It wasn't controversial, carried in the press (not like the SPEEDY of GL TERRY BERG stories), THUS I feel it doesn't merit mentioning in an encyclopedia. It falls into the realm of editorial.

More to the point, I'm not sure that this IS the first time that Robin has disguised himself as a woman. While were at it, should the poster mention that Frank Miller (whom he likes to misquote) had BATMAN himself dress, "in drag" in his book THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. Batman was in disguise in a convenirnce store. And furthermore, the posters word choice is always in the Negative, making his or her opinions lead the tone.

Let's take them one by one:

Winick has courted both controversy and praise in his career at DC Comics and Marvel comics for adding homosexual and HIV positive characters to many of his comic books.

HOMOSEXUAL not Gay.

Examples include Sunfire, a lesbian superheroine in Exiles,

Again, was never controversial. was barely a blip.

or Terry Berg, a young gay teenager in Green Lantern. He is also notable for being the first writer to cross-dress Robin, the boy wonder. The graphic novel Batman: As the Crow Flies written by Judd Winick has a lengthy scene involving Robin dressed as a young woman doctor.

Again, no one commented on this. Not at to least to the degree that would make it noteworthy (like Terry Berg or SPEEDY). The poster is MAKING an argument. Not stating a fact. And BTW, 2 pages wouldn't be considered LENGTHY to anyone.

Terry emerged as a gay character in 2001 in Green Lantern issue No. 137

YES, it's all about the GAY stuff with this guy... How about we mention his OTHER work of that year? he did an Indie comic that year, AND married his co -star from the Real World. This was all VERY hard to find out-- i read his website. www.frumpy.com

and Winick gained media recognition when he subjected the character Terry to a homophobic attack in Green Lantern issue No. 154.

he says of Winick "when he subjected the character Terry to a homophobic attack in Green Lantern issue No. 154." Not that he WROTE a story, but SUBJECTED that character to it. I'm just saying, AGAIN, it's about his tone. It's all very accusatory.

The storyline has Terry and his boyfriend walking down the street when three men yell out a derogatory anti-gay word, chase them, and Terry is brutally beaten. Winick received some criticism from some gay groups who felt that this attack was overly simplistic and that the issue of homophobia was being used as a media stunt.

WHAT gay groups? who said this? You ask for cited sources or ANY evidence and he pulls THIS out of the air.

Nevertheless, he received three GLAAD awards for his stories — two for Green Lantern and one for Pedro and Me.

RIGHT, this is actually documented, SO it should remain. And one might think that this is the prevailing opinion. Y'know, the media WATCHDOG group that hunts down anti gay remarks giving him an AWARD for the story.

Judd Winick has defended his choice to use comic books to expound his political and sexual views referring to fellow Green Arrow writer Dennis O'Neil who introduced several socially conscious story lines while writing the book.

Again, he/she ends on this rather RANDOM bit about Denny O'neil as an excuse to talk about the gay stuff again.

My impression of this site is that it is about information, not a soapbox. Nor is supposed to be an anvenue for slander. Random people coming to this site should get a clearer more unbiased picture of this man's work. Not someone who has issues and delivers them with top spin.

I'm going to add to the posting that Winick met and married his REAL WORLD Co-star Pam ling. They had a kid a few weeks agp. I read it in ENTERTAINMNET WEEKLY. THAT seems a bit more relevent than how Winick "defends" his choices on the stories he does.

Thank you Dtaylor for explaining your objections here and improving the article. Now that you have documented the problems with it, I see your point and since we are still without any sources to justify the opposing claims, I agree with the portions you have removed and re-written. It would be helpful if you could post any references you have for the statements now in the article, like the GLAAD and Eisner awards, media recognition for Speedy testing positive for the HIV virus, inclusion in school curricula, considered one of the top writers, etc. I am going to add the external link you mentioned http://www.frumpy.com now. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see now some of your objections. However, I have a few notes to make:

To "wikify" something means to include wiki links. The article version that I reverted was completely devoid of links to other articles. Included wikified links is critical to an article.
I agree with DoubleBlue in regards to the quotes. That was another issue I had regarding the reverted article. We're not the dustjacket on Judd's comic book. We're providing encyclopedic content.
I don't think using the word "homosexual" is "anti-gay." I think it was merely an attempt to sound more "professional" and encyclopedic. Perhaps misguided, but not malicious. See Wikipedia help: Assume Good Faith.
Furthermore, I saw the article more pro-gay than anti-gay. I think the previous version of the article attempts to put Judd in a rather "heroic" role by saying that he pushed boundaries and was willing to shrug off industry standards to get his point across. It may have had a POV issue, but I don't think that it was homophobic. I would be careful about throwing that word around, being that you are suggesting unbiased claims. Practice what you preach, and all that.

The new version looks better. However, in the future, I'd suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia Style guide concerning how to format articles. I think you'll find that knowing some of the guidelines there makes it easier to write articles and have them accepted by your peers. --Wolf530 00:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would add two points: (1) The article should definitely include some discussion, albeit NPOV, of Winick's penchant for gay characters. He has consistently used his writing to present gay characters and homosexual issues to young readers. He hasn't made a secret of that, either. The article should be neutral, but that fact is a critical facet of Winick's career. (2) He is not considered "one of the top writers" in comics. Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Jeph Loeb...there are plenty of names at the top, but Winick's has never been among them. I've never read a claim otherwise, either -- so if this article is going to allege Winick's prominence, you'd better include some sort of citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.67.134) (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC

One MO' time for the kids in the back...

JUST can’t let go of a few items, huh?

Okay from the top:

1) My info on the GLAAD awards and the EISNER Nominations came from Winick’s website. BUT if that’s not good enough…

2) I did a quick GOOGLE ( WINICK and GLAAD AWARDS) and found various articles to that effect. Here’s one that mention awards from 2001 & 2002

http://www.psicofxp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-105929.html

here’s the link to the GLAAD awards in 2003 ( they don’t archive back further then that)

http://www.glaad.org/media/release_detail.php?id=3393&PHPSESSID=84e84fd40ccf1d3ee7499d7ff630ca43

and a photo from 2003

http://www.glaad.org/publications/resource_doc_detail.php?id=3396&PHPSESSID=84e84fd40ccf1d3ee7499d7ff630ca43

3) the Eisners was more difficult because were too many sites and not a definitive archive. I punched in "Winick and Eisner awards" into GOOGLE and got over 500 hits. Some mention his nominations in articles ABOUT him, some site specific years in articles ABOUT the Eisner nominations. It doesn’t look like his website is lying…

Now, onto some specific comments:

Furthermore, I saw the article more pro-gay than anti-gay. I think the previous version of the article attempts to put Judd in a rather "heroic" role by saying that he pushed boundaries and was willing to shrug off industry standards to get his point across. It may have had a POV issue, but I don't think that it was homophobic. I would be careful about throwing that word around, being that you are suggesting unbiased claims. Practice what you preach, and all that.

Forgive me jumping the gun on mentioning "homophobia", but the article REALLY didn’t read as positive or heroic when:

It focused – almost ENTIRELY — on the issue of Winick writing about gays.

It tossed in some interpretation that he made Robin into a cross-dresser (Which he didn’t. It was JOKE. It’d be like accusing MONTY PYTHON of promoting "lifestyle choices" by having them dress as women all the time)

Adding/allowing an erroneous comment from another comic book creator. (MIKE Miller, later changed into the a false statement by FRANK Miller)

And lastly, made mention of "gay groups" who took issue with, disagreed with, etc, Mr. Winick’s portrayal of gays. No evidence to that fact was given and it appears that the VAST majority of the gay community doesn’t have a problem with him.

All of THIS, didn’t really come off as an endorsement, a slap on the back, or in much of ANY way that he was being applauded for making a stand.

I would add two points: (1) The article should definitely include some discussion, albeit NPOV, of Winick's penchant for gay characters. He has consistently used his writing to present gay characters and homosexual issues to young readers. He hasn't made a secret of that, either. The article should be neutral, but that fact is a critical facet of Winick's career.

I don’t agree. It COVERS the issue already. You’re asking for an opinion. I’ve been told, several times, that THAT isn’t the point of this site.

Also, "Winick's penchant for gay characters". Why JUST talk about gays? I mean, is it because he get PRESS about them? He’s got LOTS of other people in his comics. But if you’re mentioning GAYS because it’s gotten media coverage, then THAT is already IN the article. No need to expand on it.

He has consistently used his writing to present gay characters and homosexual issues to young readers. He hasn't made a secret of that, either.

1) What’s all this stuff about YOUNG readers? Comics, and even his book, were aimed at ALL readers? Are you trying to slide in a sideways comment that Winick is targeting children? And secondly, in the 3 times I’ve heard Winick talk about this subject he always comes back to the point that he includes ALL types of people in his stories. Diversity is the goal.

In general you seem VERY intent on shining a different light on this issue. One that falls into opinion and editorializing.

The facts are covered. It’s there. It’s done.

(2) He is not considered "one of the top writers" in comics. Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Jeph Loeb...there are plenty of names at the top, but Winick's has never been among them. I've never read a claim otherwise, either -- so if this article is going to allege Winick's prominence, you'd better include some sort of citation.

Well, 1) It doesn’t say he’s the MOST prominent writer in comics like a Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison or an Alan Moore. It’s says ONE of the top writers. To that fact, He’s one of only about 30 writers signed exclusively, he writes top titles, and for over a year WIZARD MAGAZINE has ranked him, every month, as a Top Ten Writer (along side Brain Bendis, Geoff Johns, Jeph Loeb, Grant Morrisosn and others)

Mr. Wolf, you seem OVERLY eager to tweak this info in a few ways, or split hairs, or raise the same issue in that could be perceived a negative light.

Leave it be.

Dtaylor

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtaylor (talk • contribs) 16:35, 24 June 2005

Criticism section

I reinstated some of the criticism of Winick's work as being glib about gay issues and about cross-dressing Robin. It's silly to have a section entitled "criticism and praise" and then have it all be praise. I also removed a phrase about him being "one of comic's top writers". Besides reading like it was written by a promotional agency, there's simply no basis for it.

It's important for Wikipedia to retain a sense of balance lest its open source format turns every article into a puff piece by overprotective fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.184.231.206 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Judd was removed for lack of source. I put some different criticism made by The Comics Journal. I think this provides balance and the need for documentation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.46.166 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Added a citation... which this article could really use more of. Any and all discussion about criticism or praise is meaningless if there aren't sources to back it up. I don't know that this quote from the Comics Journal is really that significant, since it comes from a news item and not an actual review, but now that it's cited people can read it and decide for themselves. It's not enough to mention the source, you need to link directly to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HoratioLint (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I also addded a citation to the criticism, as I'm the one who put it up there. I hope that the praise also gets cited, lest a double standard apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.193.98.41 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Guess I'll have to start coming here every day. I reinstated *all* of the criticisms. Initially it was said that they were removed for lack of citations. Then when citations were provided, the entire section was rewritten--perhaps by Winick himself? I suspect so, since he clearly sees the world as one where artistry doesn't matter, only (perceived) social bravery. My hope is that Winick or his sycophant will eventually learn that Wikipedia is not a public relations tool, it is an encyclopedia, and equal time will be taken where it is not given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.198.230.160 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 December 2005

Okay, here's my response to issues raised in the sections above this one: There is nothing wrong with including praise. Just because PR firms only give praise doesn't mean that any mention of it in an encyclopedia makes it akin to PR. And as far as the Comics Journal, the statement is clearly a statement of opinion, and therefore, not a "news" item. Magazines like the Journal and CBG are both news sources and reviews of comics. Everyone who reads them knows this.

And as far as whether Winick is one of the "top" writers in comics, this can be gauged by virtue of sales figures, rankings in fanzines like Wizard, exclusivity contracts, the high-profile or in-demand nature of the books he writes, how prolific he is, reviews of his books, prominence of mentions of him in the media, awards won, etc. Is there someone disputing that Winick measures up by these criteria? Nightscream 08:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Who said there was anything wrong with praise? And who said the journal was strictly news? Frankly, I think you're tearing down a strawman--that is, attacking a deliberately watered down version of your opponent's arguments. If you want to put in factual information, preferably cited, about why JW is a "top writer" go ahead, but the phrase itself is very inappropriate for an encylopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.217.222 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I don't know if Winick's comics sale--I imagine they do--but I doubt there's much, if any, in the way of serious praise. Winick's stories are sstilted and awkward and are clearly a plea for you to applaud him for being socially brave in such obvious ways. The ability to properly lecture the audience on liberal-light values doesn't make a good writer--if anything, it makes him a poor one, unless his intended audience is a group of morons without their own moral code and his only goal is didactic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.184.108.10 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Your statement about whether there's any serious praise doesn't seem to have anything to do with what follows it. Whether his work is "stilted", "awkard," is done "properly" or "poor" are matters of your personal opinion. Not as to whether he's been praised by critics, which is an entirely separate--and far more measurable point. As for whether they sell, well of course they do. His Barry Ween books are sell-outs, and those are other of his books are often collected in TPB form. By virtue of the fact that he is the writer on a number of top titles, that his books are instant sell-outs and have been collected in TPB, the quote by Armistead Maupin on the back cover of Pedro and Me, and his Eisner and GLAAD awards, it is reasoanble to say that he is one of the industry's top writers.

And could you please sign your posts? Thanks.

Nightscream 08:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a user name, so I'm afraid not. None of your comments cite any source of critical praise. And in your (recently deleted) revision you claim that Gaiman and Miller both praised the work. You did just make that up, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.144.137 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 December 2005

My Two Cents, and Changes I Made

First of all, whoever, keeps putting that weird italics formatting around my photo credit in the caption, please stop doing that. It looks horrible. I removed it.

Second, while I'm not the one who put the "no sources" tag, I did remove the passage about the criticism from gay groups because it was not sourced. I appreciate the fact that two citations have been placed in the article, but they do not deal with this assertion, leaving it unsourced. I haven't deleted it again, but we should have a discussion on its source. Also, of the two citations, only the link for the second one takes you to a page that confirms the asserted quote. The first one, however, does not, and I'd like to see a resolution on these two points (the unsourced assertion and the first footnote whose linked-to page doesn't contain the word "execrable.")

Why in the world was the mention of Pedro and Me deleted from the Criticism and Praise section? I restored it.

Even more bizarre, the order of the mention of Mia Dearden and Terry Berg were inverted, so that the Berg passage came second, even though that storyline came three years before the Dearden one. What's up with this? I changed the chronology back.

The mention of the three GLAAD awards was also deleted for some reason. I restored them, mentioning the first with the Pedro and Me passage, and the second and third for the GL work, since that's what Winick received them for.

The description of the Terry Berg attack was a bit more detailed than necessary, so I streamlined it slightly.

Apropos of nothing, I'm planning on expanding thte article (and Pedro Zamora's) by creating sections on their Early Life and Life on the Real World, based on Pedro and Me and The Real World Diaries, just as soon as I get around to it. :-)Nightscream 08:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)